Nurburgring & Insurance

[Guyr]

R1 Loon said:

OK, I'm no expert on company structuring, so I'll yield on that one. However, as it's a non-standard risk, then the underwriters would probably shy away from the risk (ie not offer cover) once they understand it's sole purpose is to provide first party cover, whilst leaving them with the TP liability aspect.

But you don't ask for anything like that since that's not the intention, you just insure the car for full European cover as normal and then happen to drive on a German public toll-road.

In the unlikely event you have a crash involving a third party, they have to pay third party by law and their only recompense is back to the UK Ltd Co. All it removes is the risk of an ininsured crash where you put someone else in a wheelchair and then get sued by the German insurer for all your assets.

[R1 Loon]

Guyr said:

But you don't ask for anything like that since that's not the intention, you just insure the car for full European cover as normal and then happen to drive on a German public toll-road.

In the unlikely event you have a crash involving a third party, they have to pay third party by law and their only recompense is back to the UK Ltd Co. All it removes is the risk of an ininsured crash where you put someone else in a wheelchair and then get sued by the German insurer for all your assets.

So when the underwriter asks to see the company accounts and what you do, so that they can assess the risk, what do you tell them? What do you show them?

You won't be able to get cover like that via meerkats.

[Noger]

Guyr said:

There is no right of recourse to company directors, as thats the point of a Ltd company ie all recourse stops with the company. If the insured was the company on a policy that allowed any driver I'm not sure how they'd have recourse to the driver either.

Oh yes there is !

Courts can, on occasion, "pierce the corporate veil" and treat company and directors as one. Particularly when it is a cloak for avoiding contraftual or legal liability. Which is what this is.

[Pionir]

At the risk of another long drawn out discussion, I think it's worth mentioning that under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA), a contract cannot disclaim against physical injury or death.

It won't help with your 3P claim for £50000 of armco and that Enzo you just wiped out, but it might help if you run over a biker's leg when he falls off.

[R1 Loon]

Pionir said:

At the risk of another long drawn out discussion, I think it's worth mentioning that under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA), a contract cannot disclaim against physical injury or death.

It won't help with your 3P claim for £50000 of armco and that Enzo you just wiped out, but it might help if you run over a biker's leg when he falls off.

The insurer would be dealing under their RTA obligations ie meeting those terms and a few more, but would not be indemnifying the individual.

[Soovy]

Noger said:

Guyr said:

There is no right of recourse to company directors, as thats the point of a Ltd company ie all recourse stops with the company. If the insured was the company on a policy that allowed any driver I'm not sure how they'd have recourse to the driver either.

Oh yes there is !

Courts can, on occasion, "pierce the corporate veil" and treat company and directors as one. Particularly when it is a cloak for avoiding contraftual or legal liability. Which is what this is.

^^ this

Sorry Guy, this won't work, they'll see through it and pursue you directly.

[Noger]

R1 Loon said:

Pionir said:

At the risk of another long drawn out discussion, I think it's worth mentioning that under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA), a contract cannot disclaim against physical injury or death.

It won't help with your 3P claim for £50000 of armco and that Enzo you just wiped out, but it might help if you run over a biker's leg when he falls off.

The insurer would be dealing under their RTA obligations ie meeting those terms and a few more, but would not be indemnifying the individual.

And UCTA doesn't apply to insurance contracts anyway.

[agtlaw]

Noger said:

And UCTA doesn't apply to insurance contracts anyway.

however, the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 do apply.

[Noger]

agtlaw said:

Noger said:

And UCTA doesn't apply to insurance contracts anyway.

however, the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 do apply.

In this case wouldn't this be excluded from that on the basis that they are defining the main subject matter of the contract ?

Anyway, IANAL so I won't argue with one

On the "Ring as racetrack" FOS ruling, do you know if they intend to publish this. We haven't seen anything so far ?

[JH]

Touristenfahrt’ insurance issues, both third party and own vehicle, need clarification - which is exactly what we have done in issue three of TrackDriver magazine. Those not signed-up to our free subscription by November 15 can thereafter access it when we upload the feature to our website in the new year; www.trackdriver.com.
John

[Munter]

JH said:

Touristenfahrt’ insurance issues, both third party and own vehicle, need clarification - which is exactly what we have done in issue three of TrackDriver magazine. Those not signed-up to our free subscription by November 15 can thereafter access it when we upload the feature to our website in the new year; www.trackdriver.com.
John

Give us a bump when you upload it John. It'll be interesting to see if what's written fits with experience!

[agtlaw]

i very much look forward to 15.11 when the issue will be "clarified" by trackdriver magazine.

[Fireblade69]

Noger said:

agtlaw said:

Noger said:

And UCTA doesn't apply to insurance contracts anyway.

however, the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 do apply.

In this case wouldn't this be excluded from that on the basis that they are defining the main subject matter of the contract ?

Anyway, IANAL so I won't argue with one

On the "Ring as racetrack" FOS ruling, do you know if they intend to publish this. We haven't seen anything so far ?

Well, Nürburgring Automotive GmbH say it's a racetrack and they own it so they should know.

[tertius]

Fireblade69 said:

Noger said:

agtlaw said:

Noger said:

And UCTA doesn't apply to insurance contracts anyway.

however, the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 do apply.

In this case wouldn't this be excluded from that on the basis that they are defining the main subject matter of the contract ?

Anyway, IANAL so I won't argue with one

On the "Ring as racetrack" FOS ruling, do you know if they intend to publish this. We haven't seen anything so far ?

Well, Nürburgring Automotive GmbH say it's a racetrack and they own it so they should know.

Umm, so those signs on the barriers, saying "German traffic law applies. Keep Right." were they put there by someone else?

[Fireblade69]

From the operators:

"Hello again,

the Nordschleife is a race track but you have to follow the road traffic regulations.

If you should require any further information please do not hesitate to contact us.

Kind regards

Sabrina Berresheim
Ihr welcome°center

Nürburgring Automotive GmbH
Otto-Flimm-Straße
D - 53520 Nürburg

Telefon [phone]
Telefax [phone]

[e-mail]
www.nuerburgring.de"

So I think that me saying it is a racetrack according to the owners, (parent company/operators/leaseholders - whatever they are), is more than just casually glancing at the signs. Do you want a copy of the letter from the German transport department as well? I've got that too but it's in German.

[R1 Loon]

Fireblade69 said:

So I think that me saying it is a racetrack according to the owners, (parent company/operators/leaseholders - whatever they are), is more than just casually glancing at the signs. Do you want a copy of the letter from the German transport department as well? I've got that too but it's in German.

Bitte, auf Deutsch ist gut

[agtlaw]

Fireblade69 said:

So I think that me saying it is a racetrack according to the owners, (parent company/operators/leaseholders - whatever they are), is more than just casually glancing at the signs. Do you want a copy of the letter from the German transport department as well? I've got that too but it's in German.

its a pretty well known racetrack. well done for getting that information. what's your point?

[tertius]

agtlaw said:

Fireblade69 said:

So I think that me saying it is a racetrack according to the owners, (parent company/operators/leaseholders - whatever they are), is more than just casually glancing at the signs. Do you want a copy of the letter from the German transport department as well? I've got that too but it's in German.

its a pretty well known racetrack. well done for getting that information. what's your point?

That was aimed at me and my post about the barrier signs.

The point I was alluding to (not very clearly I agree) is that they are completely ambiguous about it, and that letter shows the confusion perfectly.

Nurburgring Automotive GmbH said:

the Nordschleife is a race track but you have to follow the road traffic regulations.

They don't say "its a race track" full stop, they say "its a race track but ..." and then add a qualifier.

Normally, on a race track you don't have to follow road traffic regs, normally on a race track you don't have to have insurance, and this is precisely the essence of the issue we're facing.

If it were clearly and unambiguously a race track in the commonly held definition of the term I don't think we'd be having any of these discussions. But its not, clearly in terms of construction and layout (except the signs ... ) it is a race track, but in terms of how you have to treat and what rules (or laws) apply it varies from time to time.

As I'm sure I've said before (probably on this thread), if you want to drive the Nordschleife on a TF day, then first get unambiguous confirmation from your insurers that they will cover you at least 3rd party, if you can't get that either don't drive it at all or rent a suitable car locally.

[Fireblade69]

It's all so typically vague. Owners, operators, insurance, police, lawyers they all spend ages arguing a point for some unknown reason. It's either a track or it isn't, why muddy the water?

Edited by Fireblade69 on Sunday 14th November 08:44

[Guyr]

Still don't get the racetrack point, so is 37 miles of public roads on the Isle of Man as is several miles of Monaco and the Port of Valencia etc for a few days a year. For all these tracks, there are points at which it is a closed racetrack, with clear racing of non-roadcars and for the bulk of the year are used by public vehicles driving under road regulations with requirements for road insurance.

German law has already clarified that on TF it is a public road and insurance has to pay, I find it perverse that we have such an obvious difference in UK law.

I have a police conviction and 3 points from a German Court for 'Overtaking in an unclear situation' after an incident involving a motorbike a few years ago on a TF day (he caused me to crash avoiding him and was also prosecuted). I find it difficult to understand how this cannot be consider a public road given that.